( 82 ) call it emerald until ve come to know the truth ,f it. As soon as we see the two things dis. tinctly the idea and the name go. Sinnilar is the case here. Thcrce could be no difference of opiation that this is a violert interpretaticn. Sankara knows this well and gives the true an→ correct meaning of the sent cnce but only to be rejected because it goes against Advaita. He says ‘ननु किमत्र बुद्धिशब्दकल्पनया क्रियते । प्राथूपत्रयविवेककरः णात् अग्निरेवासीत् । तदग्नेरग्नित्वं रोदूितदिरूपयिवेककरण दपागादिति युक्तम्, यथा तन्वपकर्पणे पटाभावः । नैवम् । बुद्धिशब्दमात्रमेव ह्यग्निः । Now what is the use of a ringing in the idet and name ? Before dissection here was fire . That fireness of fire went a way by the dis section just as there is no cloth when tbreads are drawn away. No : this is not so, ':ecause fre is nothing but mere idea and name' Sankara frankly says he had to reject the natural n eaning of the sentence | ecause there is no such thing in reality as fire according to him. As an authority for this he refers to the next line of the Upanishat: वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं त्रीणि रूपाणीत्येव सत्यम् (६-४-१ ) which he interprets as meaning. “The effect is only to be spoken of ; ‘mere nare'; the three cntities alone . are true'”. Even if this be the correct meaning of the passage we have to reject it and interpret the
